'using a service without paying for it' alright. do you want us to sign contractual agreements before visiting websites? Most companies want people to use mobile apps these days because of the legal implications of editing those apps. The ads are baked in.

it comes down to the philosophy of internet systems you ascribe to.

I'd like to see your reaction to that television patent that forces people to stand up and clap after the advertisement.

I'd like to see your reaction to me placing sticky notes on my physical screen over the advertisement's location such that I never perceive the content.

I'd like to see you kneel, subordinate human worker. Do my bidding. Watch my ads. It's the moral thing to do.

Cracking code/verification systems on your computer is also code running on your system, there are literally people in prison for running the code that cracks a program, BECAUSE of copyright laws.

So I'm not sure your setting how bad it already is for users.

(What should be, is not what we are talking about, for the record)

I'm not advocating for you being forced physically to watch ads, I'm saying that as it stands, ads are the payment method and you actively blocking them means you're not paying for what you're using. I'm not criticising people for that, I'm simply stating a fact. If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out, and first to die would be actually useful sites that provide helpful information that they invested time and money into making, such as news, review sites, etc. Perhaps the threat of adblockers itself is benefitial for the internet as it might force websites to find alternate, better payment methods, but I don't see what you could replace ads with since people won't be willing to pay a monthly subscription for every site they visit, and most people won't pay for donations if you try a donations based model.

Eh, next try (Nr. 7? 8?) of Axel Springer, a tabloid that wanted to declare their site as a protected piece of art you aren't allowed to modify (block stuff).

longer in the eastern part

If everyone on the internet was to use adblockers, most of the web would die out

Websites existed before internet ads came about, and while it may be true that most would die without ads I'd be happy to see them go because the vast majority of websites have no value and only exist to try and make a few bucks off ads.

Hosting for most websites these days is virtually free. For about 80% of mine I only have to pay for the domain names, and I have no desire to serve ads to my visitors under the guise of covering costs.

The alternatives are directly charging for access to a service, or providing it for free and relying on donations or payment just for extra/bonus features/content. These methods are very successful when something is actually worth paying for.

Hosting costs heavily depend on the type of service, YouTube's costs are very much not negligible, but it is true that for most sites it is very cheap. But hosting costs aren't the only cost, many sites provide useful reviews, news, or testing that costs them money to produce, which they pay for with ads. Yes, some sites survive using alternative payment methods, but I'm skeptical that this can scale to the rest of the internet. My fear is that we'll end up in a situation where 90% of the internet is just YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and other giants and people get all of their news, reviews and other information from those sites, which I think is worse than having ads.

We are all criminals on this blessed day.

In that case, make sure the judge gets to watch 4x 10 minute ads for every 30 minutes of watching anything in 720p after having paid in full for the highest tier 4K subscription plan.

At what point do we just redo the web? I'm thinking Gemini but with more geo cities

I'm already getting into self-hosting.

It's surprisingly easy, and can be done with a VPN that has port forwarding.

Wouldn't be surprised with how shittifed the web is becoming that we end up with alternatives to DNS since it requires forwarding on port 80.

The wealthy people will just pay to have the ads removed.

As always, this law doesn't exist to benefit workers like you and me. It exists to benefit our rulers and should be another example of how government representatives do not represent their populace.

This is exactly it. It has always been up to the browser to decide how to render a website. There have always been differences. The idea that a browser can honour or ignore parts of the content has always been part of it.

If anything should be illegal, it should be websites 's constant attempts to bypass user preferences. Some of that shit is plain malware.